I'm sure your presentation will be terrific. Given that it is to be on drought, I have a question. Your excellent summary table of the IPCC findings shows no demonstrable increase in meteorological or hydrological drought, but there was increased ecological and agricultural drought. I attempted to determine how the latter two were calculated, and gave up rather quickly. Seemed to involve some sort of indices. Do you know? And if you do know, do the indices incorporate the well-known effect of CO2 on drought tolerance? Thanks so much for all you do, Roger
Why give respect to the IPCC? It is a purveyor of fake science. Any serious attack on the IPCC is either ignored or the author is canceled. The methodology is simply garbage. The models present an Earth that has no resemblance to the climate of the real Earth (Kevin Trenberth). The IPCC serves to improve the social standing of climate scientists. Data is manipulated to agree with the models, an exactly backward approach (Richard Lindzen). Models are tuned to match the poorly measured past climate and then run into the future to supposedly predict the future climate. If predicting the future were this easy we could all relax since we would know the future.
A few thoughts: (1) To me, the big question is "why?" "why have D's changed from agreeing with IPCC?" Politicians might not give you a straight answer. Maybe ask folks at CAP or another DC wonkery? What role does increasingly hysterical apocalypticism play in whose program of work, and what is the endgame? Who sold whom on that? Or we could ask Ds who are not in the apocalyptic camp. I think that there is something deeper at work here that needs to be explored.
(2) IPCC claims D&A studies are important.
"Detection and attribution studies are important for a number of reasons. For example, such studies can help determine whether a human influence on climate variables (for example, temperature) can be distinguished from natural variability. Detection and attribution studies can help evaluate whether model simulations are consistent with observed trends or other changes in the climate system. Results from detection and attribution studies can inform decision making on climate policy and adaptation."
My interpretation "D&A is important to us in the climate science community because we want to know things to make our models better. We are hoping that if we claim that they are good enough it will help climate policy and adaptation, people will believe us and give us more money to model without asking adaptation science communities how relevant they think D&A is. Just keep listening to us and ignoring them."
There needs to be a convention adopted by Government institutions, the leading scientific and MSM publications, that reference to outcomes based on the high end implausible scenarios need to come with a caveat that these models are no longer considered plausible, or better still not publish them. And for policy making they need to be outright rejected.
I am concerned that Trump has been in the news now for the period 2020-now, sucking up oxygen, allowing no other candidate to gain viability. I come from the school that says that the reason we have two parties is to prevent the rise of a genuine second party. At one time Democrats would run a liberal or progressive to keep that faction in the party. Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders all fulfil(led) that purpose. Bernie was the wors, in my view, reeking of insincerity.
Regarding Climate Change, who sets the agenda? Who controls the narrative? Try visiting either party and saying things like "CO2 is not a control knob, hardly even a problem," or "The planet is having mild warming now and since 1860 or so, end of the Little Ice Age, and the amount of warming is small and beneficial. There is no crisis." Do that, and get yourself canceled in the process.
I have to exist outside the two-party structure so that I can think and express my own thoughts. Some might say we are better off with Republicans in power, others the opposite. I think "Stop! You're both right! Less filling! tastes great!"
I wonder now, after writing the above, if the Republicans are using the same strategy as the Democrats in the Ds running progressive candidates as fence riders, keeping the sheep from bolting the flock. We who "deny" climate "science" are thoughtful and well read, and I suspect even as clarity of thought diminishes as opinions circulate into the larger party rank and file, we might be a majority. The whole purpose of practical politics is to convince majorities that they are outsiders, to marginalize us. But then, that sounds like a conspiracy theory, right?
Seems like just yesterday that Obama's apparatchiks were touting the IPCC reports as "the gold standard" for climate data despite such blunders as the Himalayan glacier scandal and the hurricane kerfuffle you flagged, Roger. Now that the IPCC is no longer giving them the answers they want, this administration is "cancelling " the IPCC in search of more pliable "experts". Truth will not be the goal, just plausibility.
Roger, I will be interested to hear your views on the 2 parties and the schisms that exist. I hope you keep your honest broker hat on while doing so, as difficult as that is for nearly all of us these days. For me that would involve sticking to the ideas and policy differences that define the factions. To the extent that a "personality cult" exists, my view is that Trump’s style challenges the emotions of people on both sides of the isle and can get in the way sensible policy formation. Biden’s expressions of utter contempt for what he describes "extreme MAGA Republicans" is equally, if not more counterproductive. I personally align more closely with the free market, small government philosophy I've always associated with the Republicans of 20 years ago.
I very much agree with your assessment, sir. Sad commentary on the state of the nation today that we voters are forced to choose between Tweddle Dumb and Tweddle Dumber. That said, that the Democrats have moved away from the IPCC is not surprising, to me anyway. It is far easier to frighten people with apocalyptic rhetoric than by cries for a free-market solution. As better research became available, and as better evidence became apparent, the IPCC had to move away from RCP and it's doom and gloom.
One of the founding fathers pegged the two party monopoly as perhaps the greatest long term risk to America and it looks pretty true lately
I really support a transferable or ranked vote that allows multiple choices for preferred candidates. Instead of being trapped into voting for one party mainly to vote against the other one you can choose your preferred candidate first and make that either/or choice as a backup
I saw how this changes the dynamic personally in a Canadian provincial party election with ranked votes. The top two guys went after each other and this caused most of the people who voted for either of them to choose the third place guy as their second choice. When the leader didn't win outright the second place guy was eliminated and all these ballots that chose him first then went to the third place candidate who won with the combined vote
A crystal clear penalty for aggressive partisanship. Apparently there are some difficulties with the usual methods and there's an improved version called STARS voting
Actually, I think several of the Founding Fathers were concerned about the development of parties. Consider this excerpt from Federalist 10 (written by James Madison):
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction. The one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction. The one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said, than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it would not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise.
Personally, I believe the best way to fix the problem is to make all elections publicly funded. No more private money! No donors! No PACs! Then, eliminate or reduce the perks of being in Congress. Put them on social security and Medicare with the rest of us.
But rather than address a real problem like this one, they would rather invent problems like climate change, then claim to have a solution that is impractical and unrealistic, then create give away programs to create new billionaires (Big Wind, Big Sun, e.g.) who can then donate Big Money to keep the worthless bastards in office.
You may be making a mistake characterizing this as Democrats vs. Republicans. I think it’s more the Public vs. the Elites. There is an all-out war between them on almost every issue and in every Western country. Maybe the Public doesn’t have coherent policies or many intellectual leaders but they sure know which policies they detest. Suggested reading: Martin Gurri’s “Revolt of the Public”.
Roger, the qualitative error you discuss from the 5th NCA is quite similar to the (IMO) error made in the study Hanna Ritchie cites in the (OWID) post about risks of power sources. That study determined adverse events by looking for what showed up in the media with attribution to a specific source. When some poor soul gets killed in a transportation accident it may not get covered at all and unless the transportation is finished products, the media won't know or report that the ore (for example) in question is destined to be metal for wind turbines or solar farms.
Oreskes is becoming an ever more transparent totalitarian who undoubtedly wants to shut down the WG1 because the data shows no emergency. In the best tradition of one person one vote one time she has the headline she and her ilk need from the Summary for and by the climate/insane on global boiling so she needs to shut down that pesky data.
Science and data never change right?
The republicans should be hauling her before congress.
I more or less agree with your characterizations of both the parties and of their positions as they currently are. However, we all need to recognize the turbulence of our times. The pull to central statism of the Dem party is as incomplete as the pull to populism of the Republicans. Ultimately, we may see the Dems as wholly the party of the Big interests and the Republicans as the party of the Little people and small businesses. That likely would lead to Dems going the way of the Federalists, and Republicans splitting into a conservative and a libertarian party.
That's not really what's happening. Most Americans are oblivious to what is going on in the rest of the World so can't understand that what is happening to them is part of a global agenda.
In actual fact the Democrat party and the non-MAGA wing of the Republican party are both captured by the Global Totalitarian Governance Overlords often called the Globalitarian (Globalist Totalitarian) Movement.
And excellent summary of what is happening in America as well as the World is right here:
Eddie Hobbes Event: Road to Dystopia - Unless we Stand Up! Ivor Cummins:
"...MAGA/Trump Republicans have well-formed political or policy views, on climate, IPCC, or anything else — it is in my view a cult of personality.."
That is utter nonsense. It is the Mitch McConnell side of the Republican party that have no well-formed political or policy views. They are like a leaf blowing in the wind. One day spending like there is no tomorrow, next day touting budgetary restraint. The only well formed policy they have is they will go with whatever the uber-wealthy Establishment or Globalist Donor Class want.
MAGA is entirely independent of Trump, in fact it is the American chapter of an international anti-Globalist Populist movement that exists in every Western nation. And it will continue undiminished without Trump, it will function just as well or perhaps even better under Vivek Ramaswamy or Tulsi Gabbard. Note that Trump was weak on rational Covid policy.
I think your footnote 1 is pretty interesting however I would add the caveat, as pointed out repeatedly by Roy Texiera on his SubStack, the Democrat tent is one in which the left wing elites feel comfortable and dominate but the traditional working class constituency of the Party is totally alienated from.
While I can't disagree that the Republicans lack coherent climate and energy policy proposals, what passes for Democrat proposals are just as incoherent and in many cases dangerous and potentially destructive.
Well done
Very helpful summary
I'm sure your presentation will be terrific. Given that it is to be on drought, I have a question. Your excellent summary table of the IPCC findings shows no demonstrable increase in meteorological or hydrological drought, but there was increased ecological and agricultural drought. I attempted to determine how the latter two were calculated, and gave up rather quickly. Seemed to involve some sort of indices. Do you know? And if you do know, do the indices incorporate the well-known effect of CO2 on drought tolerance? Thanks so much for all you do, Roger
Why give respect to the IPCC? It is a purveyor of fake science. Any serious attack on the IPCC is either ignored or the author is canceled. The methodology is simply garbage. The models present an Earth that has no resemblance to the climate of the real Earth (Kevin Trenberth). The IPCC serves to improve the social standing of climate scientists. Data is manipulated to agree with the models, an exactly backward approach (Richard Lindzen). Models are tuned to match the poorly measured past climate and then run into the future to supposedly predict the future climate. If predicting the future were this easy we could all relax since we would know the future.
To me liberals today are little more than ciphers for big business. They uncritically accept what they consume in the liberal media.
Less climate, more the power of investment bankers.
'BlackRock Puts Climate at Center of $7 Trillion Strategy
CEO Fink wrote in an annual letter to corporate executives
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-14/blackrock-puts-environmental-sustainability-center-of-strategy?leadSource=uverify%20wall
A few thoughts: (1) To me, the big question is "why?" "why have D's changed from agreeing with IPCC?" Politicians might not give you a straight answer. Maybe ask folks at CAP or another DC wonkery? What role does increasingly hysterical apocalypticism play in whose program of work, and what is the endgame? Who sold whom on that? Or we could ask Ds who are not in the apocalyptic camp. I think that there is something deeper at work here that needs to be explored.
(2) IPCC claims D&A studies are important.
"Detection and attribution studies are important for a number of reasons. For example, such studies can help determine whether a human influence on climate variables (for example, temperature) can be distinguished from natural variability. Detection and attribution studies can help evaluate whether model simulations are consistent with observed trends or other changes in the climate system. Results from detection and attribution studies can inform decision making on climate policy and adaptation."
My interpretation "D&A is important to us in the climate science community because we want to know things to make our models better. We are hoping that if we claim that they are good enough it will help climate policy and adaptation, people will believe us and give us more money to model without asking adaptation science communities how relevant they think D&A is. Just keep listening to us and ignoring them."
There needs to be a convention adopted by Government institutions, the leading scientific and MSM publications, that reference to outcomes based on the high end implausible scenarios need to come with a caveat that these models are no longer considered plausible, or better still not publish them. And for policy making they need to be outright rejected.
I am concerned that Trump has been in the news now for the period 2020-now, sucking up oxygen, allowing no other candidate to gain viability. I come from the school that says that the reason we have two parties is to prevent the rise of a genuine second party. At one time Democrats would run a liberal or progressive to keep that faction in the party. Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders all fulfil(led) that purpose. Bernie was the wors, in my view, reeking of insincerity.
Regarding Climate Change, who sets the agenda? Who controls the narrative? Try visiting either party and saying things like "CO2 is not a control knob, hardly even a problem," or "The planet is having mild warming now and since 1860 or so, end of the Little Ice Age, and the amount of warming is small and beneficial. There is no crisis." Do that, and get yourself canceled in the process.
I have to exist outside the two-party structure so that I can think and express my own thoughts. Some might say we are better off with Republicans in power, others the opposite. I think "Stop! You're both right! Less filling! tastes great!"
I wonder now, after writing the above, if the Republicans are using the same strategy as the Democrats in the Ds running progressive candidates as fence riders, keeping the sheep from bolting the flock. We who "deny" climate "science" are thoughtful and well read, and I suspect even as clarity of thought diminishes as opinions circulate into the larger party rank and file, we might be a majority. The whole purpose of practical politics is to convince majorities that they are outsiders, to marginalize us. But then, that sounds like a conspiracy theory, right?
Seems like just yesterday that Obama's apparatchiks were touting the IPCC reports as "the gold standard" for climate data despite such blunders as the Himalayan glacier scandal and the hurricane kerfuffle you flagged, Roger. Now that the IPCC is no longer giving them the answers they want, this administration is "cancelling " the IPCC in search of more pliable "experts". Truth will not be the goal, just plausibility.
Very interesting article. A true break between the IPCC and climate activists would be a sight to behold!
Roger, I will be interested to hear your views on the 2 parties and the schisms that exist. I hope you keep your honest broker hat on while doing so, as difficult as that is for nearly all of us these days. For me that would involve sticking to the ideas and policy differences that define the factions. To the extent that a "personality cult" exists, my view is that Trump’s style challenges the emotions of people on both sides of the isle and can get in the way sensible policy formation. Biden’s expressions of utter contempt for what he describes "extreme MAGA Republicans" is equally, if not more counterproductive. I personally align more closely with the free market, small government philosophy I've always associated with the Republicans of 20 years ago.
I very much agree with your assessment, sir. Sad commentary on the state of the nation today that we voters are forced to choose between Tweddle Dumb and Tweddle Dumber. That said, that the Democrats have moved away from the IPCC is not surprising, to me anyway. It is far easier to frighten people with apocalyptic rhetoric than by cries for a free-market solution. As better research became available, and as better evidence became apparent, the IPCC had to move away from RCP and it's doom and gloom.
One of the founding fathers pegged the two party monopoly as perhaps the greatest long term risk to America and it looks pretty true lately
I really support a transferable or ranked vote that allows multiple choices for preferred candidates. Instead of being trapped into voting for one party mainly to vote against the other one you can choose your preferred candidate first and make that either/or choice as a backup
I saw how this changes the dynamic personally in a Canadian provincial party election with ranked votes. The top two guys went after each other and this caused most of the people who voted for either of them to choose the third place guy as their second choice. When the leader didn't win outright the second place guy was eliminated and all these ballots that chose him first then went to the third place candidate who won with the combined vote
A crystal clear penalty for aggressive partisanship. Apparently there are some difficulties with the usual methods and there's an improved version called STARS voting
Actually, I think several of the Founding Fathers were concerned about the development of parties. Consider this excerpt from Federalist 10 (written by James Madison):
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction. The one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction. The one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said, than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it would not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise.
Personally, I believe the best way to fix the problem is to make all elections publicly funded. No more private money! No donors! No PACs! Then, eliminate or reduce the perks of being in Congress. Put them on social security and Medicare with the rest of us.
But rather than address a real problem like this one, they would rather invent problems like climate change, then claim to have a solution that is impractical and unrealistic, then create give away programs to create new billionaires (Big Wind, Big Sun, e.g.) who can then donate Big Money to keep the worthless bastards in office.
Circle of life, my friend...
You may be making a mistake characterizing this as Democrats vs. Republicans. I think it’s more the Public vs. the Elites. There is an all-out war between them on almost every issue and in every Western country. Maybe the Public doesn’t have coherent policies or many intellectual leaders but they sure know which policies they detest. Suggested reading: Martin Gurri’s “Revolt of the Public”.
Roger, the qualitative error you discuss from the 5th NCA is quite similar to the (IMO) error made in the study Hanna Ritchie cites in the (OWID) post about risks of power sources. That study determined adverse events by looking for what showed up in the media with attribution to a specific source. When some poor soul gets killed in a transportation accident it may not get covered at all and unless the transportation is finished products, the media won't know or report that the ore (for example) in question is destined to be metal for wind turbines or solar farms.
Oreskes is becoming an ever more transparent totalitarian who undoubtedly wants to shut down the WG1 because the data shows no emergency. In the best tradition of one person one vote one time she has the headline she and her ilk need from the Summary for and by the climate/insane on global boiling so she needs to shut down that pesky data.
Science and data never change right?
The republicans should be hauling her before congress.
I more or less agree with your characterizations of both the parties and of their positions as they currently are. However, we all need to recognize the turbulence of our times. The pull to central statism of the Dem party is as incomplete as the pull to populism of the Republicans. Ultimately, we may see the Dems as wholly the party of the Big interests and the Republicans as the party of the Little people and small businesses. That likely would lead to Dems going the way of the Federalists, and Republicans splitting into a conservative and a libertarian party.
That's not really what's happening. Most Americans are oblivious to what is going on in the rest of the World so can't understand that what is happening to them is part of a global agenda.
In actual fact the Democrat party and the non-MAGA wing of the Republican party are both captured by the Global Totalitarian Governance Overlords often called the Globalitarian (Globalist Totalitarian) Movement.
And excellent summary of what is happening in America as well as the World is right here:
Eddie Hobbes Event: Road to Dystopia - Unless we Stand Up! Ivor Cummins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk8ZPZS_P7Q
"...MAGA/Trump Republicans have well-formed political or policy views, on climate, IPCC, or anything else — it is in my view a cult of personality.."
That is utter nonsense. It is the Mitch McConnell side of the Republican party that have no well-formed political or policy views. They are like a leaf blowing in the wind. One day spending like there is no tomorrow, next day touting budgetary restraint. The only well formed policy they have is they will go with whatever the uber-wealthy Establishment or Globalist Donor Class want.
MAGA is entirely independent of Trump, in fact it is the American chapter of an international anti-Globalist Populist movement that exists in every Western nation. And it will continue undiminished without Trump, it will function just as well or perhaps even better under Vivek Ramaswamy or Tulsi Gabbard. Note that Trump was weak on rational Covid policy.
I think your footnote 1 is pretty interesting however I would add the caveat, as pointed out repeatedly by Roy Texiera on his SubStack, the Democrat tent is one in which the left wing elites feel comfortable and dominate but the traditional working class constituency of the Party is totally alienated from.
While I can't disagree that the Republicans lack coherent climate and energy policy proposals, what passes for Democrat proposals are just as incoherent and in many cases dangerous and potentially destructive.
I’d rather have no climate policy if the alternative is pointless, wasteful and idiotic.
See: Justin Trudeau.